Swfa Bushnell Elite 3200

Fabian: Hello.

GP: Hello.

Fabian: "I can ask a question?

GP: Sip.

Fabian: In this post your blog you make a comparison between the problem of squaring the circle and chess.

GP: Sip.

Fabian: You say in that post that the problem of squaring the circle is as impossible as making a pawn move from a black to a white box without violating the rules of chess. Did I get it right?

GP: Aha ...

Fabian: However it is possible, without violating the rules of chess a bishop move from a black box with a white (or vice versa).

GP: That's impossible.

Fabian: No, it is not.

GP: Yes, yes it is. Enunciémoslo well: During a game of chess in which respect the rules of the game which was originally a pawn in a black box will never go to a black box, or vice versa. Even I can prove mathematically, by induction on the number of movements of the bishop.

Fabian: All very nice, but imagine a game where the white will have captured the bishop who initially was in the box c1 (black box), but have not caught the other bishop. Imagine that, more forward in the same game, the white crown a pawn in a white box that asks for a bishop. Obviously, the rival will give you the same piece that had caught him before, so the bishop, the same piece , initially in c1 (black box) will now be in a white box without the rules of chess are violated.

GP: But is not the same bishop ...

Fabian: How is not it? Sure it is, is the same object, the same piece that has passed since c2 to a white square in the course of the same heading and without violating the rules. Sure, could suffer some wear and rubbing his hands, losing some molecules, but if that is not the same bishop, no piece is equal to itself.

GP: Okay. Not what I meant. I admit that this is the same part of the same object, but ...

Fabian: But?

GP: (thinks for a while.) Okay. Put it this way: During a game of chess in which respect the rules of the game, and the none of the players crowned a bishop (ie, ask a bishop to crown a pawn) in the match, say, a bishop who initially was in a black box will never go to a black box, or vice versa.

Fabian: Yes, but ...

GP: But?

Fabian: Many times in a match between two professional players, the game is suspended and later still, for example the next day.

GP: "Hum?

Fabian: position is disarmed and the court reset the match the next day, or brother-in resumption, using the same parts.

GP: I see where you're coming, but ...

Fabian: But nothing. It is possible that resetting the position of the bishop who was in a black box to be placed on a white square and / or vice versa.

GP: But is not the same game ...

Fabian: Yes it is.

GP: (Think again.) During a game of chess, whose development is suspended to be continued at a later time , in which respect the rules of the game, and in which neither player crowned a bishop (ie, ask a bishop to crown a pawn) in that game, I mean a bishop who initially was in a black box will never go to a black box, or vice versa. Do you agree now?

Fabian: Hmmm.

GP: "?

Fabian: I guess referred to the current rules of chess, because maybe in the XXII century adding a special move, say a "bishop to step" that would ...

GP: Okay! During a game of chess, whose development is suspended to be continued at a later time, in which respect the current rules of the game, and in which neither player crowned a bishop (is say, ask a bishop to crown a pawn) in the match, say, a bishop who initially was in a black box will never go to a black box, or vice versa. And now?

Fabian: imagine two friends (not professionals) who play for fun. At one point one of them asks the other if you can swap bishops (the bishop move that is in box A to box B, and vice versa). Not like a play, of course, but as a mere rearrangement of parts. If you only do it once, and is not intended to distract the opponent, the adversary could accept and if the bishop in white box will last a. ..

GP: Why want to do that?

Fabian: do not know, could be a fad ...

GP: Do they allow that the rules?

Fabian: "not be compelled to what the law does not command, nor deprived of what she is not prohibited. "The rules, at least the rules used by friends to play together, do not prohibit the exchange of pieces (if the opponent agrees). And if the rules do not prohibit, then allow it.

GP: I think he's exaggerating.

Fabian: The rules allow ...

GP: I not allow it.

Fabian: Remind me not to play chess against you ...

GP: (Think a bit more.) In the course of a chess game, whose development is suspended to be continued at a later time, in which respect the current rules of the game in which players either a bishop crown (ie, ask a bishop to crown a pawn ) and in which none of the players asks permission to rearrange the pieces in the match, say, a bishop who initially was in a black box will never go to a black box, or vice versa. And now?

Fabian: What if rearranged without permission?

GP: would be breaking the rules, if only the unwritten rules of courtesy.

Fabian: Okay.

GP: Are you happy?

Fabian: For now, yes, but ...

GP: But ...?

Fabian: How then your analogy is to square the circle?

continued ...